And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a desolation unto this day.
— Joshua 8:28
Based Joshua. If someone made a T-shirt that said “Joshua 8:28” on it, I would buy one.
But the main point of this post is that I’m not calling it that anymore, just as I didn’t call the birdemic by its proper name. I’m leaning towards the label Fake Intelligence at the moment, but if anyone has a better idea, leave it in the comments.
7 comments:
I have a brother who spends a lot of time w CGPT and he often says the phrase "CGPT thinks that..." But as you point out, CGPT is not AI and therefore does not "think" anything. It merely computes statistical language probabilities and spits out the most likely correct word/phrase/sentence according to its probability matrix. It is very good at mimicking human thought and even using complex nuances of language but that is all based on probabilities, not rational thought.
It is in fact not even remotely close to AI imo. As for what to call it, I prefer LLM (large language model) which I think is a very accurate descriptor.
Sorry to hear about your brother. Many such cases.
LLM is accurate but rhetorically ho-hum. It’s like saying CJCLDS instead of the Great and Unabbreviable Church.
Good idea. You are better at this than me at this stuff, but I thought I'd put forward a notion which is that "parrot" or "parroting" could be part of it.
https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/search?q=parroting
The best I can manage at the moment is Roboparrot. (Referencing Robocop).
why not A-Lie
Here's something I was thinking about today:
If you want to learn something, you don't want something so generic it doesn't tell you anything. Averaging everything written about a topic isn't the way to go; you want something good. You want a well-written article by someone with knowledge and understanding.
Old search engines were good at finding those, and they would find multiple examples, which would often link to other sources.
So, at vast expenditure of manpower, money, and electricity, people are being served with ... something worse than a 1998 search engine.
NLR, the first step on that road was making the top search result for everything a Wikipedia article, which could be considered manually-produced roboslop.
What's so bizarre about this is that people are acting like it's 1999 all over again. It was understandable why people were excited about the Internet. You could read lots of new things and read different perspectives. Already in the 1990's and early 2000's advertisements and propaganda were becoming prevalent (though they were both far smaller than now) and so the early Internet was a way around that, to hear what people had to say directly.
Yet, these new technologies just provide transformed text, packaged and served by a megacorporation who takes sole credit for its existence. They provide constant novelty, but it's all fake novelty. How is this in any way something to be enthusiastic about?
Post a Comment